Just to clear the air, 4th edtion has been out for a few years now.

[Dirt]

Simple observation, here. Not meant to be taken as hostile.

Lots of people have said "You can play a perfectly serious game of Hackmaster, as long as you ignore the joke elements."

But nobody has yet explained to me why I should have to pay full price for, essentially, half a game. If I'm just going to ignore the parody aspect, why not just play with the many 1E and 2E books I still have on my shelf?

(I actually play a slightly modified form of 3E, and don't see myself going back. The above, though, assumes a hypothetical desire to do so.)

I don't buy the "Well, there's no new material" argument. I, and most gamers I know who might want to play an older edition, have tons of the stuff, more than enough to run campaigns for years. And I'd have to see a lot of solid, factual evidence before I'd believe that Hackmaster has brought more than a tiny number of new gamers into the hobby. If the nostalgia/grognard crowd makes up less than an overwhelming majority of their customer base, I'd be stunned.

I'll field this one. First, I would never expect Hackmaster to bring lots new gamers into the hobby. Without a doubt, Hackmaster will appeal to those that want the 1e/2e game mechanics with A LOT more complexity.

Now, in regards to your first question - you would purchase Hackmaster if you wanted to add more to your 1e/2e AD&D game. Imagine Hackmaster being the next version of AD&D, building on the same game mechanics, but adding A LOT more. egomann gave some examples of some additions to the game.

If you don't want to play a 1e/2e game, Hackmaster won't be worth the purchase. If you DO, I would highly recommend looking at it.

My players didn't like the parody element, so we ignored it as best we could. It WAS difficult at times (especially with the spell names changed and "quirks and flaws").

As I said, we liked some of the ideas and mechanics so much that we incorporated new house rules into another 3.5 game that we were playing.

Mouseferatu, I will personally give you some Hackmaster books if you're interested (Kenzer & Co give them away like candy at their tournament events). Just PM me before Origins or GenCon next year, and I'll meet you to hand them off.

 

[Dirt]

What I will say is that most of the changes and additions have been for the better, and I think that makes the game worth playing over 1st & 2nd edition.

I agree with egomann. The additions that Hackmaster brings makes it worth playing over 1e and 2e. After you run a couple combat sessions, you'll immediately see the difference.

 

[Henry]

Having owned the Hackmaster PHB, Hackmaster strikes me as 1st & 2nd edition, mixed together, with the "tactician" knob cranked all the way to "11." Skipping Betty and Sidewinder fireballs, explosive runes type spells that make the reader's eyes explode, 5 or 6 variations on the Raise Dead spell (I LOVE THIS CONCEPT! You, too, can raise your comerades at no more than 3rd level caster -- if they don't mind coming back with 1d4+1 physical or mental defects!) all of these concepts give me the idea that someone wanted AD&D, but with tons of optional material built exclusively with dungeon crawling and tournament play in mind. It sucks to be killed off at 3rd level and not able to afford a resurrection, but you, too, can have your character back, far away from home, if you're willing to suffer a bit.

As for Hackmaster being "4E", it is, indeed the 4th edition of Hackmaster, if you read the book. Only in the preface does David Kenzer (I think) say that, in another time and place, this could have been called, "third edition D&D".

 

[Staffan]

I once described HM as 3rd ed. if they had not gone to d20 and feats, etc. Maybe 2.5 is a better descriptor of HM.

I like "(2+i)th edition", but I think that would fly over the heads of most people here...

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Doesn't it say in the foreword to the PHB that it's a joke, as well as a game?

Seem to remember something like that, but haven't got the book with me.

/M

Sure does. Both the PHB and GMG do this. This mostly seems to refer to the "Gary Jackson" style of writing, which is much like that of Gygax's style, ramped up to be even more of the attitude "my way or the highway."

I love HackMaster. Great concept, great attitude. Playable as a "real" game? Sure. It has a sense of humor about itself and the hobby in general, which is too often missing in games and gamers. That said, the game could collapse under its own weight if one were to play with every single rule in the books utilized. I know there are those who do so - or try to - and my hat's off to them. Still, there are plenty of very neat elements to the game - honor, for one. I love the Hacklopedias, which, taken altogether, make up one of the best, most fun RPG monster references ever made. I bought 'em as they were released, one a month, but I understand that the initial buy-in for a newb could be prohibitive. The Field Manual, despite some criticism by HM fans, is actually a good, cheap alternative.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Hackmaster character creation... urk. Give me the simplicity of 3e any time!

Cheers!

I don't see where you get that idea. I can make a high level Hackmaster character in 15 minutes. I can make a high level 3e character in about 3 weeks.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Simple observation, here. Not meant to be taken as hostile.

Lots of people have said "You can play a perfectly serious game of Hackmaster, as long as you ignore the joke elements."

But nobody has yet explained to me why I should have to pay full price for, essentially, half a game. If I'm just going to ignore the parody aspect, why not just play with the many 1E and 2E books I still have on my shelf?

I could say the same of 3e - and do. I ignore the fact that I could play a half dragon/half Iron golem/celestial/feral/ranger/wizard/rogue/orde of the munchkin, yet I paid for this to be included in the rules.

 

[MerricB]

I like "(2+i)th edition", but I think that would fly over the heads of most people here...

Not me. That's a really good description of it.

Cheers!

 

[Mystery Man]

I don't see where you get that idea. I can make a high level Hackmaster character in 15 minutes. I can make a high level 3e character in about 3 weeks.

I can create a 3E character in about 15 minutes. I'll never create Hackmaster character, because I hate it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I don't see where you get that idea. I can make a high level Hackmaster character in 15 minutes. I can make a high level 3e character in about 3 weeks.

Hyperbole doesn't really add anything substantive. Might as well say "10,000 years." Why not give the real amount of time it took? I can say that a HM character took just about as long as a 3e character for me to make. Both took me about an hour, but I like to pontificate too much when I create characters.